Heidegger

Cologne 25-Jul-2007

Anthony Crifasi schrieb Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:26:18 -0500:

> Bakker, R.B.M. de wrote:
>
> >> Meanwhile i have since then been discussing Aristotle and me and my friends
> >> have recently finished the first chapter of Physics B. Where Aristotle states
> >> that trying to prove the existence of physis, is downright ridiculous.
> >
> > Isn’t it the second chapter of Physics A, not the first chapter of
> > Physics B, where he says that?
> >
> >> It is a form of logos, of speaking, without noein, wothout noticing what-is,
> >> he says.
> >
> > Where exactly is the text?
> >
> > B 193a3. After having explained what physis is, namely the arche of all that is of itself,
> >
> > Aristotle continues:
> >
> > “To try to demonstrate, that physis is, is ridiculous. It is clear that many such beings
> >
> > exist. Proving the appearing by what does not appear, is done by one who cannot
> >
> > keep apart (krinein) that which is familiar by itself, from that which is not familiar by itself.
> >
> > (familiar: gnôrimon). That one is able to suffer such, is obvious, as in the case of a man, blind
> >
> > from birth on, who demonstrates a lot (syllogizei) on the subject of colours. And therefore
> >
> > those who are like that, necessarily speak about names, with no experience (noein) at all.”
>
> Thanks, found the text. But it doesn’t say quite what you portray:
>
> >> And Heidegger: a logos, which cannot tolerate the sense of being of
> >> physis: being-of-itself, is at the mercy of exclusive techne. Together they
> >> form the irresistable combination: techno-logy, where both, techne and logos,
> >> have reached their extreme effectivenes, and that is: where the possibility
> >> of questioning them allows of no more opportunity.
> >> Where is this impossibility?
> >> In the blind corner of technological thinking. As such it is to be respected.
> >> Philosophically (aristotelically), one cannot laugh enough about it
>
> The modern technological way of being was a direct result of the failure
> of the Aristotelian way, by *Aristotle’s* own description. It is
> Aristotle himself who states quite clearly that by what he says about
> physis, what Newton says about the motion of bodies cannot possibly
> occur (215a20, De Caelo 311b29-34), that what Darwin says about the
> generation of natural kinds cannot be correct (198b20-199a5), and that
> Galileo must be wrong about falling bodies (216a20). All of which turned
> out contrary to Aristotle’s predictions. This is why moderns laugh at
> the Aristotelically minded.
>

ME: If one’s in a philosophically laughing mood, then the last laugh is that people keep on talking about
_technae_ when they mean _technae poiaetikae_. This sleight of hand started with Aristotle and Plato, and
continues to the present day — encouraged by Heidegger, among others. Only once this sleight of hand is
noticed is there a way out of metaphysics. Heidegger himself achieved only the backwards leap. What is needed
is the side-leap.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Wednesday, July 25th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback